Regarding those Championshps ... Bart Starr had how many Hall of Famers on his team? How many does Aaron Rodgers have? Yep, Rodgers doing more with less. Also, Starr's coach was so legendary that the named the Super Bowl trophy after him.

Here's a stat that has no relevance with games played in a season ...Starr 80.5 qb ratingRodgers 104.9 qb rating

The stat doesn't matter.Starr didn't need to throw so he didn't train himself and his teammates to excel in that area. Many of the incompetitions that pulled his numbers down would be flagged as a penalty today causing the qb rating no harm.

Yeah, everything was different. You just can't say somebody is greater without defining what standards you are talking about, and even then, crossing 50 years is impossible. Let's throw that other Packer QB in here also, at the risk of the haters coming out. The situational difference between Babe Ruth, Hank Aaron, and Barry Bonds is tiny compared to Starr, Favre, and Rodgers.

I consider Favre to be the greatest QB, probably the greatest player of all time in the NFL. I consider Rodgers to be far and away the best QB right now. Greatness all time, however, requires duration. Rodgers could be that also, but it will take another 10+ healthy and outstanding years - well, maybe less the way he is performing and the way the game is played now.

Starr was my childhood, and he was a superb leader and quality person. However, he wasn't the greatest of his time - Unitas was the Aaron Rodgers of his generation; He wasn't the greatest ever factoring in duration; Probably he wasn't even the greatest "winner" of all time. Arguably, he wasn't even the greatest Packer at the time he played. But even with all that he wasn't, I hate to pick against him.

Why not just be happy that we as Packer fans have been blessed with the absolute best quarterbacking over the last 50+ years? I don't think anybody can argue with that.

It's interesting. While the game has changed in these vastly different eras, the game is essentially the same game. I do think there is an ego to today's game that is a bit different. That era long ago prided itself on overpowering the opponent with smart innovations in the running game and passing game alike, and tough play in execution. The balance seems to have shifted to pass heavy in the Air Coryell era a decade or more after Lombardi's successful run. Today's game is filled with the "genius" of the aerial assault and innovation, to the point where the balance is disrupted. I would venture to say that more of the balanced run/pass teams win more SBs today than the opposite.

I honestly feel that the game today is easier than many OCs make it out to be. Success can be had in today's game by better execution of the run, thereby opening up the passing options in a real balanced offense.

There is a really interesting point to be made here, comparing the Don Coryell led Chargers of 1978 to the Mike McCarthy led Packers of 2010. While Coryell could be heralded rightly as the hallmark of passing innovation, he never forgot the importance of running the football. NOBODY thinks about how Don Coryell ran the ball, and what that did for his passing game.

1978 SD: 590 ATT for 2029 yds2010 GB: 421 ATT for 1606 yds

The Chargers led the league in passing for 6 consecutive years, from 1978-1983. Everyone knows this as the "Air Coryell" era, and many OCs/HCs in today's game point to Coryell as their inspiration in their passing acumen. No one really looks at how he ran the ball.

Regarding those Championshps ... Bart Starr had how many Hall of Famers on his team? How many does Aaron Rodgers have? Yep, Rodgers doing more with less. Also, Starr's coach was so legendary that the named the Super Bowl trophy after him.

Here's a stat that has no relevance with games played in a season ...Starr 80.5 qb ratingRodgers 104.9 qb rating

I would say this stat comparison points to the importance of running the ball and defense. Fundamental football.

If we add a legit running game and a powerful defense to Aaron Rodgers, we would be nearly impossible to beat.

The stat doesn't matter.Starr didn't need to throw so he didn't train himself and his teammates to excel in that area. Many of the incompetitions that pulled his numbers down would be flagged as a penalty today causing the qb rating no harm.

Since you don't want stats ... here's a fact. Aaron Rodgers is a better quarterback than Bart Starr was.

Relative stats in the era would be an actual measuring point if one even wanted to compare them against each other.. the game was played much differently and the quality of the athletes it drew was still in its infancy.. compared to today where players routinely pick football over the other sports.

Couple that with the rules over the years being favored to the offenses and specifically the passing game to open it up. Back then.. there was no 5 yard bump rule, defensive holding, limitations of the pass rushers.. etc.

Example.. pulling probably each QB's best years (to date) in a per game focus in averages across the league:

1966 Comp 15Att 29Comp % 51.7Yards 178TD 1.3INT 1.5YPA 5.6

2011Comp 20Att 34Comp % 58.8Yards 230TD 1.5INT 1.0YPA 6.3

Personally, I don't think you really can quantify it properly.. to really say one way or another as the game was so different to what is played today. And yearly.. the stats for the top rated passers is becoming even more skewed...

Now on opinion.. I think Rodgers would be more successful if the players were flipped in eras based on their pure talent sets as we know them to be, mostly because I think Rodgers could match Starr's athletic abilities with a better arm. In terms of football IQ.. I think they probably would be comparable.

Who had better accuracy? Who had better arm strength?Who could throw a better deep ball?Who threw more yards (per game)Who threw more touchdowns (per game)Who had a better qb rating?

Aaron Rodgers.

that is all the same thing. "The guy who chucks the ball down the field." I see a QB as being more rounded than that. Why not look at who called their own plays? That is Starr. Sure Rodgers has the run/pass option and he can audible but he works out a the confines of the plays that are giving to him from the sideline. Starr had the freedom/responsibility to call the plays on his own with some assistance from the sidelines. A field general. A well rounded QB who doesn't rely on one aspect for his credibility.

I am sure it is. That plus Kevin wants more discussion plus he is bored and He has brought this discussion up about 10 times in the past 5 years. I just want to make him feel like he is getting his money's worth.

that is all the same thing. "The guy who chucks the ball down the field." I see a QB as being more rounded than that. Why not look at who called their own plays? That is Starr. Sure Rodgers has the run/pass option and he can audible but he works out a the confines of the plays that are giving to him from the sideline. Starr had the freedom/responsibility to call the plays on his own with some assistance from the sidelines. A field general. A well rounded QB who doesn't rely on one aspect for his credibility.

Plus, Aaron Rodgers has to do all of it without any hall of fame running backs to take heat off him. What you say now?

It's okay, Aaron Rodgers > Bart Starr. It's just fact. I'm glad Starr was around back then, but it's okay to acknowledge that someone better has come along. It's inevitable. There will be someone better than Reggie White, Sterling Sharpe, etc ... that's a good thing.

I am sure it is. That plus Kevin wants more discussion plus he is bored and He has brought this discussion up about 10 times in the past 5 years. I just want to make him feel like he is getting his money's worth.

To actually get his monies worth.. one would think he might start a thread discussing the real meat and potatoes of a football team.. not the over glorified position that is the QB.

You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.